Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was interesting as we talked about it in the other thread, whilst yes it was a world effort. I keep hearing "we" won it from britain and usa. I would actually say that it was russia that sacrificed the most and who took berlin and the bunker first." Winning a battle isn't the same as winning a war. It was a multi Nationed effort to eliminate Facism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yea id say they won the war in the east as they r***d and tortued there way across eastern europe as for taking the bunker i think everyone had already fled from that and berlin was being protected by kids and oaps so not much of a battle and id say we won it in the west after pretty much flattening a lot of it" We shouldn’t forget that the Russians and the Germans were for the first two years of the war allies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was interesting as we talked about it in the other thread, whilst yes it was a world effort. I keep hearing "we" won it from britain and usa. I would actually say that it was russia that sacrificed the most and who took berlin and the bunker first. Winning a battle isn't the same as winning a war. It was a multi Nationed effort to eliminate Facism. " That is right too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was interesting as we talked about it in the other thread, whilst yes it was a world effort. I keep hearing "we" won it from britain and usa. I would actually say that it was russia that sacrificed the most and who took berlin and the bunker first. Winning a battle isn't the same as winning a war. It was a multi Nationed effort to eliminate Facism. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain was on its knees in 1940/41. Gold reserves virtually exhausted, huge debts being run up, massive loss of armaments at Arnhem. The Soviet Union also took an almighty hammering, before beginning to push back against the Germans. Of all the countries that combined against fascism, I'd say the greatest burden was borne by the Soviet Union. Britain was on the winning side, yes. That's very different from saying you won the war. Britain survived the war because of financial and military assistance of the Americans, the assistance of Commonwealth and other countries (some of it voluntary, some of it coerced) and the gargantuan fight on the Eastern front that took away German firepower from the west. But that narrative doesn't fit well with those of a jingoistic disposition. " Why are you so negative and bitter?Did you want Hitler to win? You are British and all that you have your freedom to be trans and moan the way you do about the establishment is because you live in this great nation.Yes Britain has its faults as all nations on earth do. life is not perfect nor is it meant to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was interesting as we talked about it in the other thread, whilst yes it was a world effort. I keep hearing "we" won it from britain and usa. I would actually say that it was russia that sacrificed the most and who took berlin and the bunker first." No, the USSR did not win the war, nor did the UK. Without doubt the USA won the war. Let me explain. Prior to WW2 the UK (by virtue of the 'Empire') was the predominant economic world power, with Germany and the USSR being the emerging economic world powers. The US economy was in reality such a basket case that in 1937 there were serious US plans to invade and annex Canada in order to break the Empire and in so doing destroy the UK's economy and stimulate that of the USA. The plan was shelved because the US planners foresaw WW2 and chose instead to profit from a war in Europe. By the end of WW2 the industrial base, infrastructure and economies of Europe including the UK and the European USSR (which prior to WW2 was where the USSR's industry had been located) had been destroyed, leaving the USA as the new world power and the only county to emerge from the war with its economy and infrastructure not only in tact but strengthened having used its position during its neutrality to strip Britain of its industrial advantages by demanding payment by way of scientific and commercial secrets and patents. Of course as the war was coming to an end teams of US industrialists and scientists stripped Europe (and particularly Germany) of anything of commercial value that they could find. I know many will not see this as a victory, but it is the real victory and the reality of WW2. The Soviets paid the blood price, the British paid the economic price and the USA collected the Victors spoils. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was interesting as we talked about it in the other thread, whilst yes it was a world effort. I keep hearing "we" won it from britain and usa. I would actually say that it was russia that sacrificed the most and who took berlin and the bunker first. No, the USSR did not win the war, nor did the UK. Without doubt the USA won the war. Let me explain. Prior to WW2 the UK (by virtue of the 'Empire') was the predominant economic world power, with Germany and the USSR being the emerging economic world powers. The US economy was in reality such a basket case that in 1937 there were serious US plans to invade and annex Canada in order to break the Empire and in so doing destroy the UK's economy and stimulate that of the USA. The plan was shelved because the US planners foresaw WW2 and chose instead to profit from a war in Europe. By the end of WW2 the industrial base, infrastructure and economies of Europe including the UK and the European USSR (which prior to WW2 was where the USSR's industry had been located) had been destroyed, leaving the USA as the new world power and the only county to emerge from the war with its economy and infrastructure not only in tact but strengthened having used its position during its neutrality to strip Britain of its industrial advantages by demanding payment by way of scientific and commercial secrets and patents. Of course as the war was coming to an end teams of US industrialists and scientists stripped Europe (and particularly Germany) of anything of commercial value that they could find. I know many will not see this as a victory, but it is the real victory and the reality of WW2. The Soviets paid the blood price, the British paid the economic price and the USA collected the Victors spoils." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain was on its knees in 1940/41. Gold reserves virtually exhausted, huge debts being run up, massive loss of armaments at Arnhem. The Soviet Union also took an almighty hammering, before beginning to push back against the Germans. Of all the countries that combined against fascism, I'd say the greatest burden was borne by the Soviet Union. Britain was on the winning side, yes. That's very different from saying you won the war. Britain survived the war because of financial and military assistance of the Americans, the assistance of Commonwealth and other countries (some of it voluntary, some of it coerced) and the gargantuan fight on the Eastern front that took away German firepower from the west. But that narrative doesn't fit well with those of a jingoistic disposition. Why are you so negative and bitter?Did you want Hitler to win? You are British and all that you have your freedom to be trans and moan the way you do about the establishment is because you live in this great nation.Yes Britain has its faults as all nations on earth do. life is not perfect nor is it meant to be." I'm sure your opinion of me must be important to some people. I ain't one of them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was interesting as we talked about it in the other thread, whilst yes it was a world effort. I keep hearing "we" won it from britain and usa. I would actually say that it was russia that sacrificed the most and who took berlin and the bunker first. No, the USSR did not win the war, nor did the UK. Without doubt the USA won the war. Let me explain. Prior to WW2 the UK (by virtue of the 'Empire') was the predominant economic world power, with Germany and the USSR being the emerging economic world powers. The US economy was in reality such a basket case that in 1937 there were serious US plans to invade and annex Canada in order to break the Empire and in so doing destroy the UK's economy and stimulate that of the USA. The plan was shelved because the US planners foresaw WW2 and chose instead to profit from a war in Europe. By the end of WW2 the industrial base, infrastructure and economies of Europe including the UK and the European USSR (which prior to WW2 was where the USSR's industry had been located) had been destroyed, leaving the USA as the new world power and the only county to emerge from the war with its economy and infrastructure not only in tact but strengthened having used its position during its neutrality to strip Britain of its industrial advantages by demanding payment by way of scientific and commercial secrets and patents. Of course as the war was coming to an end teams of US industrialists and scientists stripped Europe (and particularly Germany) of anything of commercial value that they could find. I know many will not see this as a victory, but it is the real victory and the reality of WW2. The Soviets paid the blood price, the British paid the economic price and the USA collected the Victors spoils." America came out of the war in better shape than it went into it. For the UK it was the sun setting on the empire and yeah, Russia did the heavy lifting. I agree 100%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was interesting as we talked about it in the other thread, whilst yes it was a world effort. I keep hearing "we" won it from britain and usa. I would actually say that it was russia that sacrificed the most and who took berlin and the bunker first. No, the USSR did not win the war, nor did the UK. Without doubt the USA won the war. Let me explain. Prior to WW2 the UK (by virtue of the 'Empire') was the predominant economic world power, with Germany and the USSR being the emerging economic world powers. The US economy was in reality such a basket case that in 1937 there were serious US plans to invade and annex Canada in order to break the Empire and in so doing destroy the UK's economy and stimulate that of the USA. The plan was shelved because the US planners foresaw WW2 and chose instead to profit from a war in Europe. By the end of WW2 the industrial base, infrastructure and economies of Europe including the UK and the European USSR (which prior to WW2 was where the USSR's industry had been located) had been destroyed, leaving the USA as the new world power and the only county to emerge from the war with its economy and infrastructure not only in tact but strengthened having used its position during its neutrality to strip Britain of its industrial advantages by demanding payment by way of scientific and commercial secrets and patents. Of course as the war was coming to an end teams of US industrialists and scientists stripped Europe (and particularly Germany) of anything of commercial value that they could find. I know many will not see this as a victory, but it is the real victory and the reality of WW2. The Soviets paid the blood price, the British paid the economic price and the USA collected the Victors spoils. America came out of the war in better shape than it went into it. For the UK it was the sun setting on the empire and yeah, Russia did the heavy lifting. I agree 100%. " That is right, didnt usa enter the war in the closing stages hence why they came out in the better shape then the other countries? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only winners in any war are those that supply equipment and loans but don't engage in it. For the second world war, the winners have to be Switzerland and Sweden." Yes they were although sweden worked secretly with hitler and invited him several times and as well goring had a swedish girlfriend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only winners in any war are those that supply equipment and loans but don't engage in it. For the second world war, the winners have to be Switzerland and Sweden." I believe it was 5 or 10 years ago that the UK made the final repayment of the billions lent by the Americans from about 1942 onwards. I cannot remember the details now, but the terms effectively ended the UK's global position in matters of economic importance and transferred them to the US. America First. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is right, didnt usa enter the war in the closing stages hence why they came out in the better shape then the other countries?" You make a common mistake, the time the USA entered the war had no influence on them coming out in better shape than they went in in. There were/are only 2 things that influence(ed) the economic outcome for any country during WW2 (or any other war at any time). Firstly is the economic base undermined? Secondly, is the economic infrastructure damaged? The US economic infrastructure (except for that of the Marshal Islands, Aleutian Islands and Hawaii) was untouched, as was its economic base. Fact is, forgetting the human suffering, there is a very good economic reason to fight any war in the enemies home rather than ones own. All countries (be they participants or suppliers or not) profit from war by not having them fought on their territory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes they were although sweden worked secretly with hitler and invited him several times and as well goring had a swedish girlfriend." Before you repeat this you may want to do a little reading about the BOAC 'civilian' Mosquito flights in and out of Sweden, and how the Swedish government and Swedish ball-bearings kept RR turning out the engines that kept the RAF flying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was interesting as we talked about it in the other thread, whilst yes it was a world effort. I keep hearing "we" won it from britain and usa. I would actually say that it was russia that sacrificed the most and who took berlin and the bunker first. No, the USSR did not win the war, nor did the UK. Without doubt the USA won the war. Let me explain. Prior to WW2 the UK (by virtue of the 'Empire') was the predominant economic world power, with Germany and the USSR being the emerging economic world powers. The US economy was in reality such a basket case that in 1937 there were serious US plans to invade and annex Canada in order to break the Empire and in so doing destroy the UK's economy and stimulate that of the USA. The plan was shelved because the US planners foresaw WW2 and chose instead to profit from a war in Europe. By the end of WW2 the industrial base, infrastructure and economies of Europe including the UK and the European USSR (which prior to WW2 was where the USSR's industry had been located) had been destroyed, leaving the USA as the new world power and the only county to emerge from the war with its economy and infrastructure not only in tact but strengthened having used its position during its neutrality to strip Britain of its industrial advantages by demanding payment by way of scientific and commercial secrets and patents. Of course as the war was coming to an end teams of US industrialists and scientists stripped Europe (and particularly Germany) of anything of commercial value that they could find. I know many will not see this as a victory, but it is the real victory and the reality of WW2. The Soviets paid the blood price, the British paid the economic price and the USA collected the Victors spoils. America came out of the war in better shape than it went into it. For the UK it was the sun setting on the empire and yeah, Russia did the heavy lifting. I agree 100%. That is right, didnt usa enter the war in the closing stages hence why they came out in the better shape then the other countries?" Geography probably played a bigger part. Aside from isolated incidents, mainland USA was hardly attacked in WW2. Prior to Pearl Harbour, FDR did his best to counter a very isolationist congress that didn't want to get involved in foreign wars. He supplied Britain with materials but they had to pay (cash and carry act) The lend lease act in early 1941 was much more supportive of the allies. The big difference was aid was free at the time and they could provide military hardware without being flexible with categories. They supported the Uk, free france, china and the USSR The Uk was the biggest beneficiary getting approx $30 Billion of a total of $51 billion. When the US manufacturing base got up to speed, the production numbers were eye-watering. The USA had 14.1% unemployment in 1940, 1.9% in 1945. They went into the war still suffering from the great depression. After the war they had their manufacturing base intact, all these new technologies which they got from allies and enemies. The soldiers came home and started making babies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A genuine question. When did the war become a "world war"? My guess would be when it strayed outside Europe, e.g. Japan attacking America. " That rather depends... Some say it started in July 37 with the Sino-Japanese war others (Western European) say Sept 39 with the start of the European war, more say the June 41 (Operation Barbarossa) invasion of the USSR was the real start of WW2, but I favour the Japanese attack on the USA on 7 Dec 41. My reasoning being that up till then the conflagration was in reality a number of regional conflicts rather than a truly global event. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A genuine question. When did the war become a "world war"? My guess would be when it strayed outside Europe, e.g. Japan attacking America. " You're forgetting North Africa. .Japan invasion of China too. The war strayed out of Europe well before Pearl Harbour. . . Britain endured the war longer than the other allied nations, but it was a joint effort to end the fighting. . . Russia suffered the most fighting casualties, mostly because they used WW1 tactics, throwing men forward regardless of what faced them. Life wasn't precious to Stalin. Montgomery's plan at Arnhem was doomed from the start. He was told it would never work. All he was interested in was the race to cross the Rhine ahead of Patton and Bradley. . . Monty didn't care how many allied soldiers he had killed there. . . Another butcher. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Monty didn't care how many allied soldiers he had killed there. . . Another butcher. " I don't know where you get this idea from but you couldn't be further from the truth. Monty was many things but he was never a vainglorious commander. If you want glory seekers who sacrificed the troops under their command for fame, Patton, 'Vinegar Joe' Stilwell and Stalin are your men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes they were although sweden worked secretly with hitler and invited him several times and as well goring had a swedish girlfriend. Before you repeat this you may want to do a little reading about the BOAC 'civilian' Mosquito flights in and out of Sweden, and how the Swedish government and Swedish ball-bearings kept RR turning out the engines that kept the RAF flying." Yes and one thing that is also interesting about the current government in sweden is the murky truth of how a neutral sweden covered up its collaboration with the nazis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Monty didn't care how many allied soldiers he had killed there. . . Another butcher. I don't know where you get this idea from but you couldn't be further from the truth. Monty was many things but he was never a vainglorious commander. If you want glory seekers who sacrificed the troops under their command for fame, Patton, 'Vinegar Joe' Stilwell and Stalin are your men." Whilst I agree he was warned about that operation, he was never a "butcher".  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thing is, you could argue that Germany may have lost that war- but it won the subsequent ‘quiet’ long term war. Now Frau Merkel runs Europe from Dublin all the way to Warsaw. " This. (Apart from the whole of Europe including P.I.G.S.) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thing is, you could argue that Germany may have lost that war- but it won the subsequent ‘quiet’ long term war. Now Frau Merkel runs Europe from Dublin all the way to Warsaw. " Yep, Europe never forgave us  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Winter helped a great deal in both cases when a jumped up Corporal thought he could tangle with the Russian bear. " The Germans learned two lessons all to late. Never invade Russia in winter and if you want to beat Britain invade during afternoon tea .  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was interesting as we talked about it in the other thread, whilst yes it was a world effort. I keep hearing "we" won it from britain and usa. I would actually say that it was russia that sacrificed the most and who took berlin and the bunker first. No, the USSR did not win the war, nor did the UK. Without doubt the USA won the war. Let me explain. Prior to WW2 the UK (by virtue of the 'Empire') was the predominant economic world power, with Germany and the USSR being the emerging economic world powers. The US economy was in reality such a basket case that in 1937 there were serious US plans to invade and annex Canada in order to break the Empire and in so doing destroy the UK's economy and stimulate that of the USA. The plan was shelved because the US planners foresaw WW2 and chose instead to profit from a war in Europe. By the end of WW2 the industrial base, infrastructure and economies of Europe including the UK and the European USSR (which prior to WW2 was where the USSR's industry had been located) had been destroyed, leaving the USA as the new world power and the only county to emerge from the war with its economy and infrastructure not only in tact but strengthened having used its position during its neutrality to strip Britain of its industrial advantages by demanding payment by way of scientific and commercial secrets and patents. Of course as the war was coming to an end teams of US industrialists and scientists stripped Europe (and particularly Germany) of anything of commercial value that they could find. I know many will not see this as a victory, but it is the real victory and the reality of WW2. The Soviets paid the blood price, the British paid the economic price and the USA collected the Victors spoils." Yep, sums it up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yep, Europe never forgave us "Europe learned to move on. Britain will never come to terms with Europe until it learns to move on from the war, too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Britain was on its knees in 1940/41. Gold reserves virtually exhausted, huge debts being run up, massive loss of armaments at Arnhem. The Soviet Union also took an almighty hammering, before beginning to push back against the Germans. Of all the countries that combined against fascism, I'd say the greatest burden was borne by the Soviet Union. Britain was on the winning side, yes. That's very different from saying you won the war. Britain survived the war because of financial and military assistance of the Americans, the assistance of Commonwealth and other countries (some of it voluntary, some of it coerced) and the gargantuan fight on the Eastern front that took away German firepower from the west. But that narrative doesn't fit well with those of a jingoistic disposition. Why are you so negative and bitter?Did you want Hitler to win? You are British and all that you have your freedom to be trans and moan the way you do about the establishment is because you live in this great nation.Yes Britain has its faults as all nations on earth do. life is not perfect nor is it meant to be. I'm sure your opinion of me must be important to some people. I ain't one of them. " Bang on though wasn't he  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The US knowing this dropped a nuke, Japan didnt quit, they dropped another Japan didnt quit and then the red army marched. ." In 1939, Britain was closer to developing the atomic bomb than any other country in the world. Britain could have got their first, with the help of the scientists pouring out of central Europe. But there was a climate of xenophobia and anti-semitimism in Britain that had been whipped up by right-wing media. A media that was prepared to overlook the "excesses" of Hitler. So some of the greatest nuclear physicists in the world who came to the UK were set to work . . . making the tea for the British scientists. Britain would not give them access to anything sensitive. So they moved on to the US instead. Britain, fearing it was about to occupied by the Germans, relocated its atomic programme to Canada. The US had no such qualms about taking help from European scientists. The US rapidly overtook the UK programme with their expertise. The objective was to nuke Berlin. The Germans surrendered before the bomb was ready, however, and attention switched to Japan. It is clear from declassified documents that nuking Japan - twice - was as much about seizing Japan before the Russians did, than it was about bringing the war to an end. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Monty didn't care how many allied soldiers he had killed there. . . Another butcher. I don't know where you get this idea from but you couldn't be further from the truth. Monty was many things but he was never a vainglorious commander. If you want glory seekers who sacrificed the troops under their command for fame, Patton, 'Vinegar Joe' Stilwell and Stalin are your men." You forgot probably one of the worst (if not the worst) for putting personal vanity before the interests of the men under his command. US General Mark Clark. BTW. Patton hated him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I learned to today that Churchill offered to give Northern Ireland to Dublin in return for Ireland joining the side of the Allies. Dublin declined. An interesting footnote to the debate about the expendability of loyalists. " Found this on the subject.. The offer was first made in June 1940 with a message delivered to De Valera by Malcolm MacDonald but it was not taken seriously by anyone on the Irish side as the memorandum began: ..."The United Kingdom will at once seek to obtain the assent of the Government of Northern Ireland in so far as the plan affects Northern Ireland". Given that the Unionists completely controlled that body it was highly unlikely to mean anything. Partition had been forced on the Anglo-Irish Treaty signatories only just over a decade earlier. Dev was right to see it as a flawed offer. A second follow up 'offer' was made on the night of Pearl Harbour when Churchill sent a telegram to Dublin with a meandering message ending with 'A Nation Once again'. Churchill was known to be d*unk at the time according to many sources. Sir John Maffey called to de Valera's home some time later and confirmed Churchill's intoxication. The telegram was ignored. Just about all of de Valera's biographers recount these events - especially well done in Judging Dev by Diarmaid Ferriter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the Irish Times, February 2001: "New documentary evidence detailing a British plan to guarantee a united Ireland if the government agreed to enter the second World War on the British side is released at the Public Record Office in London today. "The British plan, drawn up in June 1940, envisaged an immediate declaration accepting "the principle" of a united Ireland, the establishment of a Joint Defence Council and a joint body to deal with the constitutional detail of unity and the possibility of merging the administrations North and South. In return, the then Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, was asked to abandon the policy of neutrality. "But Ireland could remain "non-belligerent" if the government invited British ships into Irish ports and British troops and aircraft were allowed access to Irish territory to secure the country against a German invasion while protecting Britain's western flank. "In a Dominions Office file from June 27th, 1940, released as part of the open government initiative, the Secretary of State for the Colonial Office, Malcolm MacDonald, told the Taoiseach over lunch that if the plan was accepted "a united Ireland would come into actual being within a comparatively short period of time". "The meeting was the culmination of discussions between the two men over 10 days in Dublin when de Valera had outlined his opposition to abandoning neutrality and renewed his calls for Britain to supply Ireland with arms to defend itself against German attack. "De Valera eventually rejected the plan on the grounds that Dublin could not be sure London would fulfil its guarantee of a united Ireland, his belief that Britain would lose the war and the fear of dissension within the Fianna Fail party. "The then Northern Ireland Prime Minister, James Craig, was incensed when he was told about the plan for a united Ireland. "At the Dublin meeting, which was also attended by the Minister of Supplies, Sean Lemass, and the Minister for External Affairs, Frank Aiken, Lemass said there was no guarantee in the plan that a united Ireland would be established immediately. "Indeed, de Valera had made the same point during a meeting with MacDonald on June 26th when he described the offer as a "deferred payment" for entering the war. "But MacDonald countered by claiming that while London "would be glad if a united Ireland could come into being at once", there were practical difficulties that made such a proposal impossible. The three governments would need to consider at length a new constitution. Merely extending the Irish Constitution to include Northern Ireland would not work either, he told de Valera. "Dublin also raised concerns about Northern Ireland's willingness to unite. MacDonald told de Valera London would not "coerce" Northern Ireland into an agreement and "would not and could not march troops into the six counties to force a policy upon their government". "Nevertheless, the present circumstances "offered a very good chance of such an agreement being reached". "Aiken then raised the possibility that British security could still be guaranteed if Northern Ireland was informed that Ireland would remain neutral. But MacDonald dismissed Aiken's proposal, pointing out that Northern Ireland's role in the war was "most valuable to us". "MacDonald then asked to speak not as a representative of the British government, but in a private capacity as an individual "whose sympathies were on the side of the establishment of a united Ireland". "He told de Valera and his colleagues that they faced a stark choice. "If the leaders of Eire now stayed out of the war, and perhaps contributed to German strength by doing so, whilst the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom were joined in the supreme struggle against the Nazis, then none of us in Britain would be very concerned to create a united Ireland afterwards." "A German invasion of Ireland, MacDonald said, would "extinguish Irish freedom" during the war, but if Ireland's defences were increased it would make a German attack much less likely. "But de Valera argued that national unity would be broken if British troops were stationed on Irish soil and Ireland's neutrality would be prejudiced, exposing the country to a greater risk of German attack. "In a meeting on June 26th when MacDonald read out the entire British plan, he noted de Valera's resistance to the plan. "He said that to involve his people in a war was a terrible responsibility . . . he thought it more likely that the Germans would wish to punish them savagely for presuming to enter the war against them. They would bomb Dublin." " Ireland was neutral in name only in WW2, official policy and actual practice differed. Downed RAF pilots typically got the train back to Belfast. Germans were interned for the duration of the war. Like many places that were neutral in WW2, intelligence and spying was carried out in Ireland. Everyone knows the name of Alan Turing but Richard Hayes isn't so widely known yet he was a very significant Nazi codebreaker. There is a wiki article and RTE podcast about him. The Nazis also tried to use Irish republicans a number of times. The most significant was known as plan kathleen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army-Abwehr_collaboration | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The British governments offer to the Irish may have smacked of desperation but only the hardest heart or the most politically cynical would seek to criticise it." I thought it was interesting. A bit of history providing some perspective today. London's loyalty to the loyalists had its limits in 1940 and it has its limits in 2019, as the DUP have discovered with Johnson. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Monty didn't care how many allied soldiers he had killed there. . . Another butcher. I don't know where you get this idea from but you couldn't be further from the truth. Monty was many things but he was never a vainglorious commander. If you want glory seekers who sacrificed the troops under their command for fame, Patton, 'Vinegar Joe' Stilwell and Stalin are your men. Whilst I agree he was warned about that operation, he was never a "butcher". "Operation Market Garden was the largest airbourne operation ever. . 34000 men were used. . Allied losses totalled 15,000 to 17000 men killed, injured or taken prisoner. . British 1St. Airborne division alone had 1500 killed. . Total Axis losses were around 8,000 men. Monty ignored the warnings, he went ahead with it only to try to be the first to cross the Rhine . . . To add that title to his name. . . . Oh and my grandfather was one of the few that came home from that debacle. . . Monty the butcher | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The British governments offer to the Irish may have smacked of desperation but only the hardest heart or the most politically cynical would seek to criticise it. I thought it was interesting. A bit of history providing some perspective today. London's loyalty to the loyalists had its limits in 1940 and it has its limits in 2019, as the DUP have discovered with Johnson. " Loyalty always has limits and when your back is against the wall, either militarily or politically, it is usually one of the first victims. However had Johnson got the support he should have from the rest of parliament (of whom the vast majority were elected on a manifesto of delivering Brexit) then maybe he wouldn't have been in this position to start with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The British governments offer to the Irish may have smacked of desperation but only the hardest heart or the most politically cynical would seek to criticise it. I thought it was interesting. A bit of history providing some perspective today. London's loyalty to the loyalists had its limits in 1940 and it has its limits in 2019, as the DUP have discovered with Johnson. Loyalty always has limits and when your back is against the wall, either militarily or politically, it is usually one of the first victims. However had Johnson got the support he should have from the rest of parliament (of whom the vast majority were elected on a manifesto of delivering Brexit) then maybe he wouldn't have been in this position to start with. " Those who most fiercely demand loyalty seldom give it in return. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" However had Johnson got the support he should have from the rest of parliament (of whom the vast majority were elected on a manifesto of delivering Brexit) then maybe he wouldn't have been in this position to start with. " One party stood on a manifesto to deliver this flavour of Brexit. One party had a majority to implement. Twice they set dates to do so and twice they failed to deliver. Now that same party has set a third date to deliver its flavour of Brexit. The problem is not Parliament, the problem is within the Conservative and Unionist Party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" However had Johnson got the support he should have from the rest of parliament (of whom the vast majority were elected on a manifesto of delivering Brexit) then maybe he wouldn't have been in this position to start with. One party stood on a manifesto to deliver this flavour of Brexit. One party had a majority to implement. Twice they set dates to do so and twice they failed to deliver. Now that same party has set a third date to deliver its flavour of Brexit. The problem is not Parliament, the problem is within the Conservative and Unionist Party. " So all of the Labour MP's that stood on a manifesto to "deliver Brexit" have stood by their word then? The Labour party under Corbyn have had more flip flops that a Spanish beach in August. Had the Labour party stood by their manifesto pledge Brexit would have been sorted in March. But that shower of shit that calls itself a political party are just a bunch of chancers hoping to manipulate Brexit for their own political ends. They know damn well that they cannot win a general election (that's why they are scared shitless of voting for one) so by causing as much trouble as they can (and fucking the country while they are at it) may just turn their fortunes around. Believe me, it won't. Under Corbyn Labour are a busted flush. Hopefully for ever. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... the reality of WW2. The Soviets paid the blood price, the British paid the economic price and the USA collected the Victors spoils." Pretty much. The USA did best out of it all. Nazi Germany couldn't have been defeated as utterly as it was without Russian sacrifice. The UK managed to hold on until the other two got their shit together. In the Pacific/Far East - definitely the USA. They did 90% of the heavy lifting over there. Mind you - nobody is going to win the next one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nazi Germany couldn't have been defeated as utterly as it was without Russian sacrifice. The UK managed to hold on until the other two got their shit together." Your analysis is flawed. By April/May 41 Germany had lost the war. The entrance of the Soviets in June and the US in December only accelerated the inevitable. We (the British) had by early 41 developed and were fitting sonar and both ship mounted and airborne radar capable of picking up a periscope at up to 10 miles depending on sea conditions, as well as antisubmarine weapons like hedgehog and airborne homing torpedoes which combined with Bletchley Parks code breaking ensured that over time our merchant sea routes would become fully secure. Both the German and US atomic programs were going down dead ends whereas the British program (led by New Zealander Sir Ernest Rutherford and Manchester University) had solved the problem of building a sub-critical pile and then controlling a critical mass (tickling the dragons tail). In fact Rutherford's lab in the Rutherford building still has 'hot spots' due to the work he did there in the 20s and 30s. Of course these little snippets of historical fact and my assertion that the US and Soviets were not pivotal but were catalytic in bringing WW2 to a conclusion is not popular in the main stream who much prefer to give the bulk of the credit to the USA and Russia. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is quite interesting how it took a whole world effort just to defeat one country. I heard the germans was quite advanced for their time." Every country that makes a huge leap forward - technologically or physically or whatever - is the one that goes on to conquer the world. Romans. Portugese. Spanish. Britain. America. Germany got so far and discovered there wasn't much left to conquer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is quite interesting how it took a whole world effort just to defeat one country. I heard the germans was quite advanced for their time. Every country that makes a huge leap forward - technologically or physically or whatever - is the one that goes on to conquer the world. Romans. Portugese. Spanish. Britain. America. Germany got so far and discovered there wasn't much left to conquer. " That is right germany did conquer the world too and as well those other countries too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Vikings were quite good, too. They came after the Romans, but before the Portugese. " Yes the vikings was good too doing it and as well discovered america first before colombus did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is quite interesting how it took a whole world effort just to defeat one country. I heard the germans was quite advanced for their time." Erm, no and no. 1 country? Which one was that? Firstly there were the 3 states in the Tripartite Pact. Then there were the 5 States that allied themselves with the Tripartite Pact. Finally there were the 4 co belligerent states (2 of which swapped sides during the war). So not quite 1 eh? Then we come to Germany being quite advanced, how? Maybe your thinking of Wernher Von Braun? I suggest you do a little reading about Robert H. Goddard, an American who Von Braun copied the work of in the 30's. Perhaps your thinking of jet turbines? Nope, that was the invention of one Frank Whittle. It's possible you may be thinking of General Heinz Guderian (credited with inventing the blitzkrieg). Sorry, no, there you need to read up about one Capt. Henry Liddell Hart, his ideas for mechanised warfare and how the general staff invited a German tank officer to Warminster to see them teach said upstart a lesson in a fixed war-game in which his mechanised unit would be matched against a WW1 type trench system with heavy artillery support. I could continue maybe pointing out how much of the fantastic German military engineering was actually stolen from other nations. I will concede that the shape of the German 8mm Mauser BESCHUSS round was aerodynamically perfect. Of course you may know of something I am unaware of, if so please share. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nazi Germany couldn't have been defeated as utterly as it was without Russian sacrifice. The UK managed to hold on until the other two got their shit together. Your analysis is flawed. By April/May 41 Germany had lost the war. The entrance of the Soviets in June and the US in December only accelerated the inevitable. We (the British) had by early 41 developed and were fitting sonar and both ship mounted and airborne radar capable of picking up a periscope at up to 10 miles depending on sea conditions, as well as antisubmarine weapons like hedgehog and airborne homing torpedoes which combined with Bletchley Parks code breaking ensured that over time our merchant sea routes would become fully secure. Both the German and US atomic programs were going down dead ends whereas the British program (led by New Zealander Sir Ernest Rutherford and Manchester University) had solved the problem of building a sub-critical pile and then controlling a critical mass (tickling the dragons tail). In fact Rutherford's lab in the Rutherford building still has 'hot spots' due to the work he did there in the 20s and 30s. Of course these little snippets of historical fact and my assertion that the US and Soviets were not pivotal but were catalytic in bringing WW2 to a conclusion is not popular in the main stream who much prefer to give the bulk of the credit to the USA and Russia. " It's all well and good us having these capabilities but without the staggering sacrifices the Russians bore and inflicted on Germany and the man power and manufacturing the Americans brought to the table do you really think Germany would still have been defeated without the USSR and America? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all well and good us having these capabilities but without the staggering sacrifices the Russians bore and inflicted on Germany and the man power and manufacturing the Americans brought to the table do you really think Germany would still have been defeated without the USSR and America? " Yes, Hitler's Germany would have been defeated. However I doubt there would have been an invasion of Europe. Further the war would have dragged on into the very late 40's or even the 50's before the detonation of a nuclear device over Berlin rather than Nagasaki would have brought the war to an end. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Vikings colonised a huge swathe of the Atlantic Coast and inland well beyond the Baltic. Dublin was their capital here. York was the HQ in what's england now. They got so far south and came to an accommodation with the tribes in the south of England. The Vikings left quite mark. And a lot of technology no-one had seen before." That is right they did leave a big mark and yes in the uk as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They also gave us ginger hair "Yes they did that as well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is quite interesting how it took a whole world effort just to defeat one country. I heard the germans was quite advanced for their time. Erm, no and no. 1 country? Which one was that? Firstly there were the 3 states in the Tripartite Pact. Then there were the 5 States that allied themselves with the Tripartite Pact. Finally there were the 4 co belligerent states (2 of which swapped sides during the war). So not quite 1 eh? Then we come to Germany being quite advanced, how? Maybe your thinking of Wernher Von Braun? I suggest you do a little reading about Robert H. Goddard, an American who Von Braun copied the work of in the 30's. Perhaps your thinking of jet turbines? Nope, that was the invention of one Frank Whittle. It's possible you may be thinking of General Heinz Guderian (credited with inventing the blitzkrieg). Sorry, no, there you need to read up about one Capt. Henry Liddell Hart, his ideas for mechanised warfare and how the general staff invited a German tank officer to Warminster to see them teach said upstart a lesson in a fixed war-game in which his mechanised unit would be matched against a WW1 type trench system with heavy artillery support. I could continue maybe pointing out how much of the fantastic German military engineering was actually stolen from other nations. I will concede that the shape of the German 8mm Mauser BESCHUSS round was aerodynamically perfect. Of course you may know of something I am unaware of, if so please share." I already said what country there didnt you see it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all well and good us having these capabilities but without the staggering sacrifices the Russians bore and inflicted on Germany and the man power and manufacturing the Americans brought to the table do you really think Germany would still have been defeated without the USSR and America? Yes, Hitler's Germany would have been defeated. However I doubt there would have been an invasion of Europe. Further the war would have dragged on into the very late 40's or even the 50's before the detonation of a nuclear device over Berlin rather than Nagasaki would have brought the war to an end." Ahh so you think we'd have finished the war by nuking Berlin. Who knows, you could be right | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is quite interesting how it took a whole world effort just to defeat one country. I heard the germans was quite advanced for their time. Erm, no and no. 1 country? Which one was that? Firstly there were the 3 states in the Tripartite Pact. Then there were the 5 States that allied themselves with the Tripartite Pact. Finally there were the 4 co belligerent states (2 of which swapped sides during the war). So not quite 1 eh? Then we come to Germany being quite advanced, how? Maybe your thinking of Wernher Von Braun? I suggest you do a little reading about Robert H. Goddard, an American who Von Braun copied the work of in the 30's. Perhaps your thinking of jet turbines? Nope, that was the invention of one Frank Whittle. It's possible you may be thinking of General Heinz Guderian (credited with inventing the blitzkrieg). Sorry, no, there you need to read up about one Capt. Henry Liddell Hart, his ideas for mechanised warfare and how the general staff invited a German tank officer to Warminster to see them teach said upstart a lesson in a fixed war-game in which his mechanised unit would be matched against a WW1 type trench system with heavy artillery support. I could continue maybe pointing out how much of the fantastic German military engineering was actually stolen from other nations. I will concede that the shape of the German 8mm Mauser BESCHUSS round was aerodynamically perfect. Of course you may know of something I am unaware of, if so please share." The German uniforms, almost a fashion statement, and glorified since, from Hollywood to Motörhead.... made by Hugo Boss to boot ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ahh so you think we'd have finished the war by nuking Berlin. Who knows, you could be right" It's not so much think as know. It is documented that had the atomic bomb been ready prior to the German surrender the USA (at Churchill's insistence) would have dropped the first one on Berlin. What made Churchill a perfect wartime leader was the fact that at his core he was a total bastard and a bloodthirsty one at that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The German uniforms, almost a fashion statement, and glorified since, from Hollywood to Motörhead.... made by Hugo Boss to boot !" yep, and those 'black leather' SS Officers and Gestapo trench-coats were actually made of rubber. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Vikings colonised a huge swathe of the Atlantic Coast and inland well beyond the Baltic. Dublin was their capital here. York was the HQ in what's england now. They got so far south and came to an accommodation with the tribes in the south of England. The Vikings left quite mark. And a lot of technology no-one had seen before." The Vikings didn't colonise anywhere, viking was a summer job. You may as well say sailors colonised the Americas and Antipodes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ahh so you think we'd have finished the war by nuking Berlin. Who knows, you could be right" It's well documented, not least by General Groves in his account of the Manhattan project, "Now It Can Be Told". Berlin was the objective of the Manhattan Project. It escaped being obliterated by just a few weeks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Then we come to Germany being quite advanced, how? Maybe your thinking of Wernher Von Braun? I suggest you do a little reading about Robert H. Goddard, an American who Von Braun copied the work of in the 30's. Perhaps your thinking of jet turbines? Nope, that was the invention of one Frank Whittle. It's possible you may be thinking of General Heinz Guderian (credited with inventing the blitzkrieg). Sorry, no, there you need to read up about one Capt. Henry Liddell Hart, his ideas for mechanised warfare and how the general staff invited a German tank officer to Warminster to see them teach said upstart a lesson in a fixed war-game in which his mechanised unit would be matched against a WW1 type trench system with heavy artillery support. I could continue maybe pointing out how much of the fantastic German military engineering was actually stolen from other nations. I will concede that the shape of the German 8mm Mauser BESCHUSS round was aerodynamically perfect. Of course you may know of something I am unaware of, if so please share." As you rightly said in your other post. Britain had made great leaps forward in anti submarine warfare and the code breakers at Bletchley were running rings around the Germans. While the thought that Britain could actually lose the war had started to fade the threat from just across the channel was still very real. I think you can say that Germany was a bit more than "quite" advanced. You may say that "Blitzkrieg" was a British idea and that we taught it to the Germans. That may be true but it was the Germans who put it to use. They had already gone through Poland like a dose of salts so surely you would have expected the British (whose idea it allegedly was) and French to have been more than ready for it. But no. In 3 short weeks the BEF had been pushed back to the beach at Dunkirk and a few weeks later France surrendered. Now to Von Braun. Again it may be true that he copied some of the works of others. Scientific co-operation was quite common at the time but it was he that took theory and paperwork and made it fly. Firstly with the V1 flying bomb and later with the V2 rocket. Also when the Americans launched their space program it was Von Braun who was put in charge of the rocket development that eventually put a man on the moon. Frank Whittle is rightly credited with the invention of the turbo jet engine. His 1930 patent was the first. Although it must be said that even his work had roots in earlier pulse jet inventions. However it was Hans von Ohain's engine that was the first to fly. Firstly in the Heinkel 178 (the worlds first jet aircraft) and later in the Messerschmitt 262 (the worlds first jet fighter) To be fair Von Ohain did admit to having seen Whittle's patent and did copy quite a lot of it. But the bottom line is that he got it flying first. To say that Germany was "quite" advanced is an understatement. Germany was "very" advanced at that time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What made Churchill a perfect wartime leader was the fact that at his core he was a total bastard and a bloodthirsty one at that." Yes, I've come across this quite often. Churchill was a tyrant basically. That made him rubbish as a politician in peacetime. And ideal for taking on another tyrant in wartime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you look at how many countries the USSR annexed at the end of the war, I'm sure you could argue that they "won". " Shhhh! You can't say that. You will upset all the Stalin loving commies on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you look at how many countries the USSR annexed at the end of the war, I'm sure you could argue that they "won". Shhhh! You can't say that. You will upset all the Stalin loving commies on here. "I thought you knew Clem was an anti capitalist Corbyn voter... Keep up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Stalin loving commies" Reds under the bed? Do you think the communists are trying subvert democratic governments via a swingers site? Tease the means of reproduction? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Stalin loving commies Reds under the bed? Do you think the communists are trying subvert democratic governments via a swingers site? Tease the means of reproduction?" People go on about the 1974 European referendum. I was reading a fascinating account of George Orwell and 1984. Covering the period circa 1973/74. Petrol rationed, miners on strike, electricity black-outs, three-day working week. Those on the right feared Labour had been infiltrated by Soviet sympathisers. Pinochet not long in power and real talk about installing an authoritarian government here, even a military coup. Seems extraordinary now, but the UK was in a really dark place when the opportunity to join the EC/EU came up. I hadn't appreciated the political climate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Stalin loving commies Reds under the bed? Do you think the communists are trying subvert democratic governments via a swingers site? Tease the means of reproduction? People go on about the 1974 European referendum. I was reading a fascinating account of George Orwell and 1984. Covering the period circa 1973/74. Petrol rationed, miners on strike, electricity black-outs, three-day working week. Those on the right feared Labour had been infiltrated by Soviet sympathisers. Pinochet not long in power and real talk about installing an authoritarian government here, even a military coup. Seems extraordinary now, but the UK was in a really dark place when the opportunity to join the EC/EU came up. I hadn't appreciated the political climate. " Lucky the Tories saw sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Stalin loving commies Reds under the bed? Do you think the communists are trying subvert democratic governments via a swingers site? Tease the means of reproduction? People go on about the 1974 European referendum. I was reading a fascinating account of George Orwell and 1984. Covering the period circa 1973/74. Petrol rationed, miners on strike, electricity black-outs, three-day working week. Those on the right feared Labour had been infiltrated by Soviet sympathisers. Pinochet not long in power and real talk about installing an authoritarian government here, even a military coup. Seems extraordinary now, but the UK was in a really dark place when the opportunity to join the EC/EU came up. I hadn't appreciated the political climate. " There's a certain irony bringing up stalin loving commies in a forum that discusses Brexit day in and out. I'm normally the first to savage conspiracy theorists but the more I think about it, Brexit arose from a Russian Nationalist ideology. It was an attempt to cause divisions in Europe. The UK was never fully 'in' the EU. There was always a very strong mistrust of Europe and a European identity on both the left and right of UK politics. There was always eurosceptic wing of the tories, which ultimately gave birth to UKIP. Don't forget the Brexit referendum was an attempt by DC to kill off the 'swivel eyed loons' Given what we know about cambridge analytica, 'fake news', trumps election, and russia's troll army, it is hard to dismiss the theory that this is the Foundations of Geopolitics in action. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Then we come to Germany being quite advanced, how? Maybe your thinking of Wernher Von Braun? I suggest you do a little reading about Robert H. Goddard, an American who Von Braun copied the work of in the 30's. Perhaps your thinking of jet turbines? Nope, that was the invention of one Frank Whittle. It's possible you may be thinking of General Heinz Guderian (credited with inventing the blitzkrieg). Sorry, no, there you need to read up about one Capt. Henry Liddell Hart, his ideas for mechanised warfare and how the general staff invited a German tank officer to Warminster to see them teach said upstart a lesson in a fixed war-game in which his mechanised unit would be matched against a WW1 type trench system with heavy artillery support. I could continue maybe pointing out how much of the fantastic German military engineering was actually stolen from other nations. I will concede that the shape of the German 8mm Mauser BESCHUSS round was aerodynamically perfect. Of course you may know of something I am unaware of, if so please share. As you rightly said in your other post. Britain had made great leaps forward in anti submarine warfare and the code breakers at Bletchley were running rings around the Germans. While the thought that Britain could actually lose the war had started to fade the threat from just across the channel was still very real. I think you can say that Germany was a bit more than "quite" advanced. You may say that "Blitzkrieg" was a British idea and that we taught it to the Germans. That may be true but it was the Germans who put it to use. They had already gone through Poland like a dose of salts so surely you would have expected the British (whose idea it allegedly was) and French to have been more than ready for it. But no. In 3 short weeks the BEF had been pushed back to the beach at Dunkirk and a few weeks later France surrendered. Now to Von Braun. Again it may be true that he copied some of the works of others. Scientific co-operation was quite common at the time but it was he that took theory and paperwork and made it fly. Firstly with the V1 flying bomb and later with the V2 rocket. Also when the Americans launched their space program it was Von Braun who was put in charge of the rocket development that eventually put a man on the moon. Frank Whittle is rightly credited with the invention of the turbo jet engine. His 1930 patent was the first. Although it must be said that even his work had roots in earlier pulse jet inventions. However it was Hans von Ohain's engine that was the first to fly. Firstly in the Heinkel 178 (the worlds first jet aircraft) and later in the Messerschmitt 262 (the worlds first jet fighter) To be fair Von Ohain did admit to having seen Whittle's patent and did copy quite a lot of it. But the bottom line is that he got it flying first. To say that Germany was "quite" advanced is an understatement. Germany was "very" advanced at that time. " Just to add a few thoughts to this.... When the germans first invaded france they were actually mostly using horse drawn rather than motorised transport so the myth of the mechanised blitzkrieg is just that....as a side issue some of the german tanks were so heavy and large that they were unable to get through the mediaeval road layouts of many belgian and french towns leaving them somewhat useless as support for troops. There are many myths about the ability's of the Nazi war machine and Hitler was very aware of the propaganda value that the appearance of continuous development of new frightful monsters of war (along with handsome and well dressed soldiers) would have on the enemy. Whether he believed the Nazi myth making or was so addled by his drug taking is a moot point but the fact that the whole edifice relied on stealing resources and intellectual property, and relying on slave labour to build his vision of an empire makes interesting comparisons with other European conquests of Africa, South America, India, North America, Australia etc etc ad infinitum.... The links between JFKs dad and the Nazis is another interesting area too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was reading a fascinating account of George Orwell and 1984. Covering the period circa 1973/74. Petrol rationed, miners on strike, electricity black-outs, three-day working week. Those on the right feared Labour had been infiltrated by Soviet sympathisers. Pinochet not long in power and real talk about installing an authoritarian government here, even a military coup. Seems extraordinary now, but the UK was in a really dark place when the opportunity to join the EC/EU came up. I hadn't appreciated the political climate. " Yep, the early 70's were a bad time in a lot of ways, but not as bad as now. Let me give a little perspective: Fuel shortages, national rolling electricity blackouts, 3 day working week, inflation and recession. Cause, the oil producing nations of OPEC refusing to supply the USA and increasing crude oil prices exponentially. The answer in Britain: Tories blame Labour for a global crisis and move towards a military backed right wing totalitarian cheered on from the sidelines by the Express, Mail and Telegraph. Ranged against them is the Labour Party and an organised workforce that bring the country to a halt leaving supermarket shelves empty and bringing the country within hours of hunger driven mass civil unrest and maybe even revolution. Results: Short Term: A Tory clime-down, introduction of the threshold agreement so that those at the bottom and the poorest did not have to pay for the incompetence and mismanagement of those at the rich and powerful. Medium Term: When Tories regain power they use a combination of individual greed, legislation and selling off of State Assists to undermine organised labour. Thus removing the counter to their previous power grab. Long Term: Tories blame Labour for worldwide recession caused by international bank fraud, followed by 9 years (so far) of ideological austerity being used to strip wealth from the bottom and poor and transfer it to the rich and powerful at the top. Anyone spot the glaring similarities and differences between now and the 70's that I see? The one absolute conclusion I have reached is that as the power of organised labour decreases poverty homelessness and hunger amongst the masses increases (as do the obnoxious excesses of wealth and conspicuous consumption of the uber rich). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you look at how many countries the USSR annexed at the end of the war, I'm sure you could argue that they "won". " Problem was most of the countries they annexed were resource poor, and expensive to hold on to. While the USA had all the loan repayments from the UK, free access to what had been the UK's trade routes and no real responsibilities. Funny old world isn't it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was reading a fascinating account of George Orwell and 1984. Covering the period circa 1973/74. Petrol rationed, miners on strike, electricity black-outs, three-day working week. Those on the right feared Labour had been infiltrated by Soviet sympathisers. Pinochet not long in power and real talk about installing an authoritarian government here, even a military coup. Seems extraordinary now, but the UK was in a really dark place when the opportunity to join the EC/EU came up. I hadn't appreciated the political climate. Yep, the early 70's were a bad time in a lot of ways, but not as bad as now. Let me give a little perspective: Fuel shortages, national rolling electricity blackouts, 3 day working week, inflation and recession. Cause, the oil producing nations of OPEC refusing to supply the USA and increasing crude oil prices exponentially. The answer in Britain: Tories blame Labour for a global crisis and move towards a military backed right wing totalitarian cheered on from the sidelines by the Express, Mail and Telegraph. Ranged against them is the Labour Party and an organised workforce that bring the country to a halt leaving supermarket shelves empty and bringing the country within hours of hunger driven mass civil unrest and maybe even revolution. Results: Short Term: A Tory clime-down, introduction of the threshold agreement so that those at the bottom and the poorest did not have to pay for the incompetence and mismanagement of those at the rich and powerful. Medium Term: When Tories regain power they use a combination of individual greed, legislation and selling off of State Assists to undermine organised labour. Thus removing the counter to their previous power grab. Long Term: Tories blame Labour for worldwide recession caused by international bank fraud, followed by 9 years (so far) of ideological austerity being used to strip wealth from the bottom and poor and transfer it to the rich and powerful at the top. Anyone spot the glaring similarities and differences between now and the 70's that I see? The one absolute conclusion I have reached is that as the power of organised labour decreases poverty homelessness and hunger amongst the masses increases (as do the obnoxious excesses of wealth and conspicuous consumption of the uber rich)." Bloody hell Will. Sometimes you can be quite sensible on here but other times (like the above) you don't half post some nonsense. Yes the fuel (mostly petrol) shortage was caused by the OPEC countries, but WTF had that to do with the electricity blackouts and the 3 day week? Back then Britain's electricity came almost exclusively from coal (not oil or gas) The electricity shortages came directly from the politically motivated miners strike. The sole reason of which was to (successfully in the end) bring down the Heath government. The Wilson/Callaghan government may have got the lights back on (by giving the miners everything they asked for BTW) but pretty much everything else went downhill from there on. The world oil crisis was actually quite short lived yet Britain struggled through high inflation and negative growth for years when the rest of Europe was prospering, and had to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bailout. Think modern Greece. Britain didn't get the nickname "sick man of Europe" for nothing. Totalitarian right using the military?  Where the fuck did you get that shit from?
It may have escaped your notice but right up to May 1979 it was a Labour government (albeit propped up by the Liberals for a while)
When the Conservatives finally regained power they inherited an almost bankrupt country riven by industrial unrest, and its first job was to mop up the shit from Callaghan's "winter of discontent"
I don't know what glasses you wore in the 70's Will, but they must have had a good dip in the bucket of rose tint. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There we have it then. I'm talking shit. The Generals and general staff of UKLF and the Defence Council never discussed or made plans to stage a military coup. Although those very Generals are on record saying they did just that little thing on a number of occasions through the mid to late 60's and 70's. Thanks you for putting me right, I clearly need to go back and relearn my 20th Century British military history. Maybe at some point you can school me on other matters of military history as clearly your reading and knowledge far exceeds mine." So basically you are saying that half a dozen Colonel Blimps sat talking shit over a boozy lunch or two in the Guards club and then admitted it. Hardly a full blown conspiracy.
I'm pretty sure you have a good knowledge of British military history, but guess what? So have I. Especially when it comes to WW's 1 & 2. So if you want a pissing contest I would be happy to oblige. However I won't be drawn in to commenting on tittle tattle from the memoirs of Colonel Blimp.
BTW. It didn't go unnoticed that you backed off from commenting on the rest of my post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BTW. It didn't go unnoticed that you backed off from commenting on the rest of my post." That's because there is little or no point in attempting to debate economic or politics with you. However it is easy to sum you up, you're one of those ex pat brexiteers who lives in Spain with your German wife and family and spends all your time complaining about being surrounded by foreigners. Funnily enough I know of another brexiteer that used to be just like you (till his wife and children fucked off because they were sick of his xenophobia). Bet you also enjoy a pint and fag down the local... lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BTW. It didn't go unnoticed that you backed off from commenting on the rest of my post. That's because there is little or no point in attempting to debate economic or politics with you. However it is easy to sum you up, you're one of those ex pat brexiteers who lives in Spain with your German wife and family and spends all your time complaining about being surrounded by foreigners. Funnily enough I know of another brexiteer that used to be just like you (till his wife and children fucked off because they were sick of his xenophobia). Bet you also enjoy a pint and fag down the local... lol" Beats Moston. Trust me I know the place quite well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Beats Moston. Trust me I know the place quite well. "You are probably right about Moston, it is not the most salubrious of places, however living here is merely geography, £2.50 and 7 numbers on tomorrows euromillions is all it required to change that. I doubt your attitudes could be fixed so simply.   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Beats Moston. Trust me I know the place quite well.
You are probably right about Moston, it is not the most salubrious of places, however living here is merely geography, £2.50 and 7 numbers on tomorrows euromillions is all it required to change that.
I doubt your attitudes could be fixed so simply. "How does that old saying go? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that old saying go? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. "Your life is good! Your life is as it is because of free movement of EU citizens inside the EU. You voted to take your EU citizenship away from yourself. And you think you don't need fixing! 
...
...
...
Seek psychiatric help before it's too late! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that old saying go? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Your life is good!
Your life is as it is because of free movement of EU citizens inside the EU.
You voted to take your EU citizenship away from yourself.
And you think you don't need fixing!
...
...
...
Seek psychiatric help before it's too late!"You don't half make an awful lot of assumptions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't half make an awful lot of assumptions." What assumptions? You are British, your wife/partner is German. The important thing there is you are British. You live in Germany and Spain and you holiday in France. You travel freely between these places because you are EU citizens and therefore have the right to move freely within the EU. You have a good life, I know this because you keep telling us all how good it is. Your life is as good as it is because you were born in Britain and Britain joined the EU. This is not an assumption because all humanities life chances are primarily predicated on location at birth and mobility rather than ability. You voted to leave the EU, again you have supplied that titbit on more than one occasion. By examining the above as a whole I have concluded that the only logical explanation for you voting leave is that you were raving mad at the time. That you persist (3 years later) in believing you were not voting to harm yourself leads me to believe you have a continuing problem and need professional help. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't half make an awful lot of assumptions. What assumptions? You are British, your wife/partner is German. The important thing there is you are British. You live in Germany and Spain and you holiday in France. You travel freely between these places because you are EU citizens and therefore have the right to move freely within the EU. You have a good life, I know this because you keep telling us all how good it is. Your life is as good as it is because you were born in Britain and Britain joined the EU. This is not an assumption because all humanities life chances are primarily predicated on location at birth and mobility rather than ability. You voted to leave the EU, again you have supplied that titbit on more than one occasion. By examining the above as a whole I have concluded that the only logical explanation for you voting leave is that you were raving mad at the time. That you persist (3 years later) in believing you were not voting to harm yourself leads me to believe you have a continuing problem and need professional help. "Like I said. An awful lot of assumptions. If you dig back far enough you will find that I didn't vote at all in the referendum. I had been out of the country for too long. I had no trouble travelling around Europe long before Britain joined the EU. OK maybe the paperwork will be a bit different but I don't foresee any great changes. I am married to a German and have been for some years. I have also been officially resident in Germany for well over 5 years. Apart from one or two minor details my status will not change. Trust me, I've checked. I've always expected that a deal will be done, and still do. That is not to say that I think that "No deal" should be taken off the table. Without that ultimate sanction a deal could never be done. You dream about your socialist utopia yet fully support an organisation that always supports the big corporations that you profess to loathe. So keep buying the Euromillions ticket then one day maybe it will be "The working class can kiss my ass" Etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
